1

An analysis of representations of political leadership in the Shakespearian plays, The

Tempest and The first part of King Henry IV Ashley Hibbert - 21st May 1999

William Shakespeare’s dramas, The Tempest, and King Henry the Forth Part 1, contains

representations of leaders that re-enforce a political ideology based on the social contact

in the ‘right’ of a person to lead. There is also a utilitarian defence of the right of the

leader to mis-lead. Both ideologies were at the time emerging into the Renaissance world;

the former was a development, ironically, from the idea that not only was the king subject

to god, but what is more important to the traditional conventions of the people he was

supposed to lead.

The latter, inspired by Machiavelli’s The Prince, or at least influenced by the

same spirit of the times gaining momentum. Shakespeare’s Historical epics, and to an

extent his comedies and tragedies, reflect a preoccupation with, and a desire to explore,

the privileges and responsibilities that the political figure is subject to, be they handed

down by god, or - as Machiavelli would argue - handed up by the people.

In The Tempest, Prospero signifies the iron fist in the velvet glove form of leadership - the

father and banished Duke who is not so much imprisoned by the island, but by his magic

garment, staff and book. There are the items of his craft that enable him to cause the great

tempests and maintain his own minor hierarchy on the island. Yet they are means to an

end, of liberating his daughter into her ‘Brave New World’ and himself, to shed a burden

of responsibility. While he, as a power-figure, could not have rejected his authority for

the consequence of exile it received - since ‘I have my Dukedom got’ at the conclusion -

we see the two Prospero’s.

2

It is the one that would ‘break my staff, bury it certain fathoms in the earth, and

deeper than did ever plummet sound, I’ll drown my book’ (5.1.54) that wishes to be set

free, who is of the more human and humane.

It is this human, a-political half of Prospero (for whom necessity dictates we may

not gain much insight to, since the Magus never shows his tricks) who must have his

garment removed from him to tell the truth of his banishment to his coming-of-age

daughter, Miranda, in Act 1 Scene 2. So too, does it make him incapable of empathising

with ‘The King and ‘s followers’ (5.1.7). The isolation that is intrinsic to the island - the

isolation of the lonely, untouchable state of Dukedom - means an alienation from his

fellow humans. It allows Ariel, ‘which art but air, a touch, a feeling of their afflictions’,

while not Prospero, the captor.

Prospero perhaps understands the dangers that exist within a pattern of alienation,

made darkly frightening in the binary switching over of characteristics - the human

becomes spirit, the spirit human. This demonstrates the maxim that slavery is degrading

to the owner more than to the slave - or master more than servant. His own liberation, his

own peak, does depend on the giving up of his own daughter to the ‘auspicious star’

Ferdinand, without whom he ‘will ever after droop.’ (1.2.180). Though he recognises that

upon the breaking of the magic and returning home, every third thought will be of his own

mortality, and he will be under the authority of his own son in law. Yet he will die on his

home-land, at the mercy of his own strengths, recycled back into an ancient hierarchy.

This may indicate the necessary ensuring of the righteousness of a ruler - whether their

subjects, upon being liberated, turn on him, or recognise themselves the importance of

having been subjected.

It is this mutually enlightening process - this additional role reversal, in this case

the subject becoming liberated and the humbled master, that the characters are all capable

of redeeming themselves. Caliban sees ‘what a thrice-double ass (he) was to take

(Stephano) for a god, and worship (him)’, while the man who elected him, Caliban, as a

servant was, though the harsher, ultimately the more respectable and just.

3

The right Duke is not a native to the island - not proclaimed leadership by birth -

and instead he claims his justified control over his ‘lessers’ through power and

opportunity. This is perhaps an alternation from divine rule to natural rule, transcendent

to imminent - though, interconnected with the idea of chance favouring the faithful mind.

This switch over from royalty to politics is possibly dependant on the understanding by

those led about the necessity of their servitude.

Prospero can break his guiding staff and drown his book of wisdom only when

those whom he, with the help of his craft, enslaved recognise that the end does justify the

means. When his ‘charms are all o’erthrown’ he turns to Ariel, who has run a million

errands for his master, to ‘release me from my bands with the help of your good hands.’

Ariel is now master of his own destiny, free to depart his island prison and

fourteen-year-long debt, into possession of that which he could not demand - ‘My liberty’.

The epilogue is Prospero’s asking for Arial’s leave. Placing himself in Arial’s mercy may

not be of necessity to his own liberty. However, it may be important to his conscience - to

see if the servant-become-friend sees him in kind. Acknowledge the justice of the

contract formed when ‘from ... a torment I did free thee.’ It is not enough for the leader to

rationalise the justness of his own authority, but of the led to concede, and embrace, this

justness equally, for both to be at ease, with a free conscience.

What differs between Ariel and Caliban is the willingness to subordinate

themselves to this hierarchy, to embrace the paradox of liberator and enslaver being the

same - how Ariel is bonded to Prospero when he ‘the thee out (from) a cloven pine.’ Arial

decides to be Prospero’s servant, while Caliban becomes his slave by refusing to

subscribe to the law of the social contract -where Miranda tries to educate and civilise

him, he strived to ravish her, and subsequently given up his right to being treated like a

person, and not a ‘tortious ... filth as thou art.’

Prospero, upon arriving on the island, gave Caliban his trust and sought to gain

‘the goodwill of the natives.’ (Machiavelli 9). And in the native’s reactions to his

goodwill - either trying to ‘violate the honour of my child’ to ‘people’d else this isle with

4

Calibans’ or carry out honestly and loyally all that is asked - they ‘ought either to be well

treated or crushed.’ (Machiavelli 13)

Here lays the morality play - that teaches ‘subjects obedience to their king’ by

showing them the ‘untimely end of such as have moved tumults, commotions, and

insurrections.’ (Heywood 53)

The Tempest is not so simplistic as to say to its audience that leader is right all the

time ‘just because’, yet portrays an order of interdependence between servant and master

as a contract that both have privileges and responsibilities to abide by. To the commoners,

Shakespeare provides two options: the Spirit or the moon-calf; to the nobleman: the

Prospero, or the Stephano. Hope is given to the servant that in abiding by the law of the

land freedom is imminent. To the nobleman, comfort that he ‘need not make himself

uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved

with difficulty.’ (Machiavelli 84) To the latter, a warning to make "provisions in the calm

against the tempest," (Machiavelli 136) and in the former, to ride out that tempest, and

embrace the spirit of the times.

King Henry the Fourth Part One - the first of the Henriad - justifies the authority of a King

by his ability to remain within power as an indication of divine support. The title’s

namesake, King Henry IV, and subsequently his son, posses their authority not through a

maintained linage, but through a capacity to exploit opportunity and harbour strength

against others exploiting the same process to gain the crown - rebellion. Henry IV’s

ability to defend his kingdom against the conspiracy is dependant on his son’s allegiance

(in much the same way as Prospero’s life is given meaning and completion by the

happiness and loyalty of his daughter).

Both the King and his heir are dedicatees to the realm of being more than they

appear, the realm of politics, and it is the trait of repressing their desires to successfully

gain, or contain, a hold on authority, that draws the distinction between those who live,

and those who are doomed to die. It is the individuals who are able to counterfeit other,

more socially (and politically) appealing characteristics, who are able to assume a

5

pleasing form, who outlive the turbulence of this failed rebellion. In Act 3, Scene 2, the

King’s monologue to his son, whom he perceives as a ‘rode of heaven to punish my

mistreadings’, reveals his own agenda as a prince whom ‘dress’d myself in such humility

that I did pluck allegiance from men’s hearts’ away from King Richard II. He reveals his

own clever means of rising to power, his own agenda. It is only by his son’s revelation of

his own agenda that the King regains pride in him. It is at this discovery that he swiftly

sends him to confront the Rebel Leaders and thus prove his worth on the battlefield.

‘A prince ought to have no other aim or thought ... than war, it’s rules and

disciplines.’ (Machiavelli 79) A successful leader is thus someone who is learned and

experienced to lead his people into war. Machiavelli rates the strength of a prince by this

ability to lead an army against an enemy. Such a strength, however, is depend, or

indicative, of their status on the home front. It is in war - civil or foreign - that a King

proves his status within his own territories, whether he is worthy enough to be abided by

his sons and noblemen. The combat between royalty and nobility in Act 5 Scene 4 is a

window into the morale, strengths and loyalty of the army, and subsequently of the

citizenship. This scene is essentially an abstract battle - what is involved is not the ability

of individuals to clash swords, but of their skill in the political arena.

It is this passage from politics to battle field that the King and his heir unite on,

between he verbal duelling of the court (or its subverted equivalent, the Boar’s Head

Tavern) and the combat of the battle ground. In becoming a master of the craft of

deception, the two royal figures may reassert their authority to rule. The Prince whom

‘hast lost thy princely privilege with vile participation’ (3.2.86-87) is transformed into ‘an

angel dropp’d down from the clouds’; The King, from ‘smooth as oil, soft as young

down’ into ‘myself, mighty and to be fear’d’ (1.3.5-7).

Finally, there is Sir Jack Falstaff. Who is was and who he becomes is problematic,

yet what remains constant is his enigmatic nature. He is an artificial character having

constructed and re-invented himself as needs progress. From a Knight into ‘so fat-witted

with drinking of old sack’ (1.2.2), then from a failed Captain whose charges are

6

slaughtered into one looking ‘to be either earl or duke, I can assure you ... as a noble man

should.’ (5.4.141+)

The day belongs to the personality chameleons, those able to change their

appearance to fit the circumstance, either as opportunities to reveal their true and greater

selves, a driving force to do so, or a means to construct another, more useful facade. This

reformation, in the hands of the politically minded leader - is a tool for the manipulation

of opinions to lull popular opinion into a false sense of security, and subsequently crush

opposition with an unexpectedly harsh blow.

The leader’s success or failure depends on their perception of what it is to be a

ruler, and how that is entwined to their own personal agenda - the success of which

depends on their ability to hide it. The rebel’s lack of consistency in their vision proves to

be one of their major faults, while Henry, Hal, and John are united in their vision of their

just cause.

Glendower, for example, sees his right to rule as being divinely inspired, that he is

a vessel for god’s greater purpose - a spokesperson, if you will. And all that is required for

him to succeed is to be, for on his birth ‘the heavens were all on fire, the earth did

tremble.’ (3.1.25) His ridiculous dependence on faith clashes with Hotspur, who sees

even the disintegration of the rebels before the battle has even begun as an opportunity to

prove his own strength on the battlefield, and thus to prove his worth as a leader solely

through his worth as a warrior. While the drama’s protagonist is in danger of death by

‘The Douglas’s’ sword, he has his son to fall back on in a ‘fair rescue.’ Hotspur also

meets his better on the battle field and having relied completely on his ability as a warrior

(contrast to that of a commander) he becomes "food for ... worms." (5.4.87). Hotspur

breaks the Machiavellian rule of thumb that ‘he who has the state ... in his hands ought

never to think of himself.’ (Machiavelli 130) The pattern that emerges is that Glendower

believes in authority transcendent of his own skills, Hotspur sees his success and right to

lead as imminently dependant on his solo ability to claim victory. The King and the

Prince look to loyalty from their peers, and from the people.

7

The biggest insults against the King is the ‘misuse of tenure of they kinsman’s

trust’ and that his son is a familiar sight to all ‘save (me, who) have desir’d to see thee

more.’ (3.2.89) Discard that the King failed to keep in high favour those who allowed him

to gain the crown and misused their trust when he could successfully hold onto the crown

by the people’s grace; and that he is comparing his son to the appointed liege whom he

succeeded through a revolt against. The rebellion is fuelled by a frustration that the King

has broken the unwritten law of favours reciprocated, and that some debts can never be

payed off. Yet for the King, the only law of any permanence is of politics - for one who

‘becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the

people over to himself.’ (Machiavelli 53) Nobles come and go, but the people remain the

same.

It is shown to be necessary to have conflict as a driving force within Kingdoms

great and small. For within Hal’s ‘principality’ of Eastcheap, it is necessary that Falstaff

be caught out in his lie of the highway robbery, revealed to the taverners in Act 2 Scene 5,

to elevate himself in the popular opinion of the ‘Boar’s Head’ crew. And in the larger

scale, ‘Opportunities (having) made ... men fortunate, and their ability (enabling) them to

recognise the opportunity’, there is the uprising which allows Hal to prove his redemption

by fulfilling his promise to assimilate Hotspur’s endearing qualities into his own self.

In the same principle, The King seems to have anticipated the rebellion, perhaps

even planned that ‘Percy, Northumberland, the Archbishop Grace of York, Douglas,

Mortimer, Capitulate against us and are up,’ (3.2.118), inciting them through is refusal to

pay Mortimer’s ransom. In this way, he is able to craftily ‘foster some animosity against

himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may grow higher.’ (Machiavelli 120). In

the King’s potentially invocation of the rebel alliance, ‘that which apparently threatens

authority seems to be produced by it.’ (Dollimore 14)

Shakespeare follows Machaevelli’s process of creating a science out of an art - returning

Kingship and Dukeship into politics, chance into probabilities, by making referrals to

Empires and individuals past, to apply into a contemporary context. It is that which turns

8

Shakespeare’s 1 King Henry IV from a chronicle to a drama. And while what mattered (to

Shakespeare’s audience, and thus immediately to Shakespeare) ultimately, was "action

not significance, behaviour not discourse" (Dollimore) - that the drama needed to be a

popular production contrast to overly analytical, entertaining not academic - Shakespeare

made a business out of communicating his ‘politics as idealised or demystified ... forms

of power’ (Reader) in that he was able to present issues that were on the forefront of the

audience’s mind, portray the possible process of his own world through the world of the

past, and a supernatural, fairy-tale-like Parable, giving voice to the social views of his

age,” (Dollimore) by whatever they may be bounded or elevated by.

9

• Bibliography

Dollimore, Jonathan. Political Shakespeare. Manchester and New York: Manchester Uni.

Press, 1985.

Heywood, Thomas. An Apology for Actors, reprinted for the Shakespeare Society;

London 1841.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by W. K. Marriott. Everyman’s Library,

1978.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest, 1611.

---. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, 1597.

•